ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2024
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom McKay, Chair
Representative George Rauscher, Vice Chair
Representative Thomas Baker
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Jennie Armstrong
Representative Donna Mears
Representative Maxine Dibert
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 359
"An Act relating to the permanent fund dividend and a one-time
permanent fund dividend payment and land voucher; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 359(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 393
"An Act relating to oil and gas leases and royalty shares; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 393 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 195(FSH)
"An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to administrative areas for
regulation of certain commercial set net entry permits;
establishing a buy-back program for certain set net entry
permits; providing for the termination of state set net tract
leases under the buy-back program; closing certain water to
commercial fishing; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 251(L&C)
"An Act exempting certain foods and drinks prepared in a
person's uninspected home kitchen from state labeling,
licensing, packaging, permitting, and inspection requirements;
and permitting a person to acquire meat from a producer by way
of an ownership share in an animal if certain conditions are
met."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 329(FSH)
"An Act relating to state tideland leases; and relating to
aquatic farming or related hatchery operation site leases."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 349
"An Act relating to leases of public land for renewable energy
projects; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: ONE-TIME PFD PAYMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRONK
02/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/24 (H) RES, FIN
03/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/01/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/08/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/08/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/15/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/15/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/25/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/25/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/27/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/03/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/24 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/05/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/24 (H) Failed to Move Out of Committee
04/05/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/08/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 393
SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET/MIDDLE EARTH GAS ROYALTIES
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/18/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/24 (H) RES, FIN
04/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/01/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 04/03/24>
04/03/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/05/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/24 (H) Failed to Move Out of Committee
04/05/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/08/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 195
SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
SPONSOR(s): RUFFRIDGE
05/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/08/23 (H) FSH, RES
02/06/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/06/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/13/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/14/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/19/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/21/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/26/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/02/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/02/24 (H) Moved CSHB 195(FSH) Out of Committee
04/02/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/03/24 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NEW TITLE 3DP 1NR 2AM
04/03/24 (H) DP: CARPENTER, STUTES, VANCE
04/03/24 (H) NR: HIMSCHOOT
04/03/24 (H) AM: MCCORMICK, MCCABE
04/08/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 251
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPTIONS FOR HOMEMADE FOODS
SPONSOR(s): RAUSCHER
01/16/24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/24
01/16/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (H) L&C, RES
02/02/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/02/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/05/24>
02/05/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/05/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/05/24 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/14/24 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/21/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/15/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/15/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/27/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/27/24 (H) Moved CSHB 251(L&C) Out of Committee
03/27/24 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/28/24 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NEW TITLE 2DP 5NR
03/28/24 (H) DP: RUFFRIDGE, SUMNER
03/28/24 (H) NR: CARRICK, FIELDS, SADDLER, PRAX,
WRIGHT
04/08/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 329
SHORT TITLE: AQUATIC FARM AND HATCHERY LEASES
SPONSOR(s): VANCE
02/15/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/24 (H) FSH, RES
02/27/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/05/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/07/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/14/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/19/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 03/21/24>
03/21/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/26/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/24 (H) Moved CSHB 329(FSH) Out of Committee
03/26/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/28/24 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NEW TITLE 6DP
03/28/24 (H) DP: C.JOHNSON, HIMSCHOOT, CARPENTER,
STUTES, MCCABE, VANCE
03/28/24 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER RES
04/08/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, presented HB 195 via
a PowerPoint presentation, titled "HB 195: East Side of Cook
Inlet Set Net Fleet Reduction Act."
GLENN HAIGHT, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
195.
RYAN MCKEE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 251 on behalf of
Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Legislative Liaison
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
251.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, presented HB 329.
PAUL FUHS, President
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
329.
JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff
Representative Sarah Vance
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
329, on behalf of Representative Vance, prime sponsor.
KATE DUFAULT, Program Manager
Aquatic Farms Leasing Program
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
392.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:52 PM
CHAIR MCKAY called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Dibert, Mears,
Armstrong, Wright, Baker, McCabe, Rauscher, and McKay were
present at the call to order. Representative Saddler arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 359-ONE-TIME PFD PAYMENT
1:06:22 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 359, "An Act relating to the permanent fund
dividend and a one-time permanent fund dividend payment and land
voucher; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee, adopted on 3/25/24 as a working document, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 359, Version 33-
LS1292\B, Nauman, 3/15/24, ("Version B").]
1:06:33 PM
CHAIR MCKAY moved to rescind the committee's action on 4/5/24 in
failing to report CSHB 359, Version 33-LS1292\B, Nauman,
3/15/24, out of committee. There being no objection, Version B
was once again before the committee.
1:07:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report CSHB 359, Version 33-
LS1292\B, Nauman, 3/15/24 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
1:07:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS called a point of order. She requested the
short title of the proposed bill.
1:07:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:07 p.m. to 1:08 p.m.
1:08:55 PM
CHAIR MCKAY asked if there was an objection.
1:09:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected.
1:09:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for the purpose of discussion.
He clarified that the vote would be to move the proposed
legislation out of the House Resources Standing Committee and to
the House Finance Standing Committee, where further work would
need to be done.
1:10:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Baker, Rauscher,
Saddler, Wright, McCabe, and McKay voted in favor of the motion
to report CSHB 359, Version 33-LS1292\B, Nauman, 3/15/24 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. Representatives Armstrong, Mears, and Dibert
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 359(RES) was reported out of
the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 6-3.
1:11:02 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:11 p.m. to 1:12 p.m.
HB 393-COOK INLET/MIDDLE EARTH GAS ROYALTIES
1:12:35 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 393, "An Act relating to oil and gas leases and
royalty shares; and providing for an effective date."
1:12:46 PM
CHAIR MCKAY moved to rescind the committee's action on 4/5/24 in
failing to report HB 393 out of committee. There being no
objection, HB 393 was once again before the committee.
1:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report HB 393 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
1:13:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected.
1:13:44 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCabe, Baker,
Rauscher, Saddler, Wright, and McKay voted in favor of the
motion to report HB 393 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representatives Armstrong, Mears, and Dibert voted against it.
Therefore, HB 393 was reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 6-3.
1:14:32 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:14 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.
HB 195-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
1:15:20 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to
administrative areas for regulation of certain commercial set
net entry permits; establishing a buy-back program for certain
set net entry permits; providing for the termination of state
set net tract leases under the buy-back program; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB
195(FSH).]
1:16:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 195 via a PowerPoint presentation,
titled, "HB 195: East Side of Cook Inlet Set Net Fleet Reduction
Act" [hard copy included in the committee packet].
1:16:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:16 p.m. to 1:18 p.m.
1:18:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE displayed a map of the Upper Cook Inlet
management area on slide 2, which showed the multiple management
areas in Cook Inlet. He stated that the proposed legislation
would seek to adjust the number of nets in the water in the area
just past Nikiski for 60 miles, which includes both the Kenai
and Kasilof Rivers. He stated that this would be done by
reducing the permits, with the ideal number being 79 to 106
permits, as seen on slide 3. He noted that there are around 440
permits registered in this district. He noted that the fishery
has been closed for the past few years because there are too
many nets in the water.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to slide 4 and discussed the
program that the proposed legislation would implement. He
stated that a framework would be created to allow for a buyback
program. To do this there would need to be a permit holder
vote. He noted that if the vote opts for the program, it would
be a voluntary program. He pointed out the value of the permits
in the buyback would be determined by the money raised, divided
by the number of permits. He stated that the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) would handle much of the
buyback program.
1:22:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to slide 5 and stated that this
issue has been ongoing, but legislation has not moved in the
past because there has been a question of the funding. He noted
that the proposed legislation would not require the use of state
funds, as the user group and CFEC has sought funding from
federal grants, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fishing Capacity Reduction Program, and
private sourcing. He moved to slide 6 and summarized HB 195.
1:25:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE presented the sectional analysis for HB
195 [copy included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which establishes that
this legislation may be known as the East Side of Cook
Inlet Set Net Fleet Reduction Act.
Section 2 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding new Legislative findings and intent
relating to the bill.
Section 3 Amends AS 16.43.200 by adding 2 new
subsections:
(c) Establishes an area of the Upper Subdistrict
of the Cook Inlet Central District as a distinct
administrative area separate from the Cook Inlet
Central District on December 31, 2024. This area
is made up of the statistical areas identified on
January 1, 2024, as 244-21, 24422, 244- 31, 244-32,
244-41 and 244-42.
(d) Provides that an individual who has a set net
permit for the Cook Inlet Central District on
December 31, 2024, is not entitled to set net in the
administrative area created under this section as
of January 1, 2024 unless the permit has been
reassigned to that new administrative area.
Section 4 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which provides how the
commission will determine whether an individual who
holds a set net entry permit in the Cook Inlet Central
District on January 1, 2024 is reassigned an entry
permit for the administrative area established under
AS 16.43.200(c) (added by sec. 3 of the bill) or the
portion of the Cook Inlet Central District that was
not assigned into the administrative area established
under AS 16.43.200(c).
Section 5 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which defines the
appeals process in the new administrative area. This
section provides that a provisional license will be
issued pending resolution of an appeal and the
provisional permit holder may cast a provisional
ballot in the election established under section 6.
Rep.justin.ruffridge@akleg.gov
Section 6 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which requires on April
1, 2025, an election be conducted by the commission
among persons holding permits in the new
administrative area, to affirm support or opposition
to a buy-back program. Requires the commission provide
public notice of the election, hold public meetings
concerning the election, and clarify the details of
the buy-back program to those participating in the
election.
Section 7 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which establishes the
set net entry permit buy-back program for certain
permits fished in the administrative area established
under AS 16.43.200(c) (added by sec. 3 of the bill).
This section will only take effect if approved in an
election by the set net entry permit holders in the
administrative area established under AS 16.43.200(c).
If it is approved, the buyback program will become law
30 days following notification of the Lt. Governor
(see secs. 9 and 11). Sets qualifications for
participation in the program and allows the commission
to determine the amount for which to buy back an entry
permit by dividing the money allotted by the qualified
applicants. It also requires that the purchased
permits be cancelled and not re-issued and specifies
other details of the buy-back program.
Section 8 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which requires the
commission to provide a written report to the
Legislature on the status of the program not later
than January 15, 2031.
Section 9 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which requires the
chair of the commission to notify the Lieutenant
Governor and the Revisor of Statutes of the outcome of
the election held under section 6.
Section 10 Repeals sections 1, 2, 7 and 8 on June 30,
2031.
Section 11 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which provides that
secs. 1, 2, 7, and 8 take effect only if notice is
provided under section 9 that the buy-back program
established under section 7 was approved.
Section 12 Effective Date Clause. Section 4 of the
bill takes effect January 1, 2025.
Section 13 Effective Date Clause. Provides if
sections 1, 2, 7 and, 8, take effect under section 11,
they take effect 30 days following the date of the
notice provided in section 9 that the buy-back program
was approved.
Section 14 Effective Date Clause. Except as provided
in sections 12 and 13, the bill takes effect July 1,
2024.
1:30:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to Section 7 and questioned how
the buyback amount would be determined. He expressed the
understanding that whatever money is available would be divided
out on a prorated basis to the qualified and self-nominating
applicants.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE expressed agreement with the
explanation. In response to a follow-up question, he stated
that the proposed legislation would not create a fund, rather it
would create the framework for a buyback program. He discussed
the original version of the bill, which would have created a
lottery system for the buyback. He stated that the price in
that version of the bill was $260,000 per permit. He expressed
the opinion that the change made by the previous committee of
referral has made the language vague. Because of the change, he
explained that the amount of money the program receives would be
divided by participants; therefore, a fund would not be created.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that the proposed legislation
would not appropriate money to buyback permits, but it would set
up the process to do this. He questioned where the funds would
come from.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that in working through
versions of the bill over the years, the state's federal
delegation has made requests, and there has been "an expression
of support for funding a buyback using federal funds." He added
that these funds currently do not exist. He expressed the
opinion that the framework would need to be created before
funding would be put forth. He noted that there has been
federal disaster relief funding for this fishery. In response
to a follow-up question on private sourcing, he stated that this
would be from conservation groups to preserve habitat and the
spawning capacity for Chinook salmon.
1:36:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS voiced the belief that the issue is
complex, with a long history. She expressed the understanding
that the amount of sockeye salmon returning up the river would
support a commercial fishery; however, there is a severe limit
in fishing because of the low numbers of Chinook salmon returns.
She expressed the understanding that the proposed legislation
would reduce the number of permit holders by around three
quarters. She added that CFEC would be directing this permit
reduction.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE responded that this summary is mostly
correct. He stated that the proposed legislation would make a
policy decision, but the decisions of who can fish and where
they can fish would be management decisions. He added that the
legislature granted the authority for others to make the
management decisions. He continued that the management has
decided to prioritize the Chinook salmon fishery and return, and
there has been discussion on whether this is the correct
management decision. He noted the optimization study by CFEC
and pointed out that in the past there had been a management
decision which resulted in over permitting these areas. He
stated that the policy call for the legislature is whether it
should help reduce the number of permits through a buyback. In
response to a follow-up, he confirmed Representative Mears's
understanding of the issue. He added that if the permits are
bought back, there would be no guarantee that the remaining
permit holders would be allowed to fish.
1:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER discussed supply and demand in relation
to the management of the fishery. He suggested that supply has
been delegated to the Board of Fish to determine, while the
demand side would be determined by CFEC with the number of
permits. He questioned whether there has been an attempt to
manage the supply side, as opposed to the proposed legislation
addressing the demand side.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that the Board of Fish is
prioritizing the return of Chinook salmon in the effected
rivers, while commercial fishing in the area is targeting
sockeye salmon. He added that sockeye have been returning in
record numbers. He commented that this has been referred to as
"fish wars" on the Kenai River. He described some of the
strategies that have been applied to gear reduction concerning
the length and depth of nets. He noted that a study was done to
see if the gear reduction effected the Chinook salmon; however,
up to this point data has shown that Chinook have not been
effected by gear reduction. He noted that Chinook salmon levels
in the Kenai River is reaching a dire status.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether the optimum number
study is defined in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE deferred to CFEC.
1:45:17 PM
GLENN HAIGHT, Commissioner, Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, expressed agreement that the issue is complex.
CHAIR MCKAY warned the committee to not go into the details of
fishery management, as this would be outside of the scope of HB
195.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT referred to the report, titled "Findings and
Results from a Modified Optimum Numbers Study on the Cook Inlet
Eastside Set Gillnet Fishery," [copy included in the committee
packet]. He pointed to page 14 and discussed the sockeye return
in the Kenai River, noting that the runs dramatically increased
in the 1980s. He stated that because of this the Board of Fish
began requiring registration in subdistricts; therefore, the
mobility of these harvesters became limited. He noted that the
sockeye harvest has fallen over the last several years. He
referred to the chart on page 25 and pointed out that the time
harvesters can fish has also decreased. He explained that
management in the area is now being determined by the
combination of Chinook salmon conservation and shorter fishing
periods. He stated that the information on the optimum number
of permits is summarized on page 31, but a definitive optimum
number has not been given. The main variables on the optimum
number are price and volume, as seen on the chart. He noted
that the volume of the resource is "fine," but because of
management changes and Chinook salmon, the amount of fish that
can be harvested has declined. On the chart, he pointed out
where certain prices and certain volumes intersect to create the
range of the number of permits that could make a minimal profit.
He expressed uncertainty whether the proposed buyback would
increase the harvest, noting that "it looks like a pretty dismal
situation for these folks."
1:49:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BAKER commented that from his understanding as a
subsistence fisherman in Kotzebue, the supply is the demand. He
noted that escapement is what limits the areas that can be
fished. He concurred that this issue is very complicated.
1:50:40 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 195 was held over.
HB 251-EXEMPTIONS FOR HOMEMADE FOODS
1:50:52 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 251, "An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture
and Conservation; relating to loans and limitations under the
Alaska Agricultural Loan Act; exempting certain foods and drinks
prepared in an uninspected kitchen from state labeling,
licensing, packaging, permitting, and inspection requirements;
permitting a person to acquire meat from a producer by way of an
ownership share in an animal if certain conditions are met; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 251(L&C).]
1:51:52 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor, presented CSHB 251(L&C). He stated that the proposed
legislation would address food security in the state, which has
become a bigger issue since the COVID-19 pandemic. He stated
that the proposed legislation would allow local producers to
sell homegrown or farmed food to informed consumers.
MR. MCKEE presented the sectional analysis for CSHB 251(L&C)
[copy included in the committee packet], which read as follows,
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1 amends AS 17.20 to create a new article
titled "Homemade Food; Animal Shares" consisting of
four new sections:
AS 17.20.332 (exemption statute): This section creates
an exemption for the purchase and sale of homemade
food products for home consumption and provides
applicable restrictions or limitations on transaction
requirements, food ingredients, and labeling or
signage requirements.
AS 17.20.334 (animal shares): This section establishes
conditions and requirements of animal share operations
in statute, which would allow the sharing of meat and
meat products by individuals participating in a herd
share arrangement.
AS 17.20.336 (relationship to other laws): This
section contains clarifications to the bill, including
that the Department retains its investigative and
regulatory powers, and the bill does not change state
requirements for brand or animal health inspection,
that state agencies may provide assistance,
consultation or guidance at the request of the
producer, that the bill shall not be construed as more
restrictive than applicable federal requirements, and
the bill does not affect any federal or local laws.
AS 17.20.338 (definitions): This section contains
definitions applicable to 17.20.33217.20.338.
MR. MCKEE paraphrased the explanation of changes for CSHB
251(L&C) [copy included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Article 7aSection 17.20.332 Exemption for homemade
food: This section adds or removes language to some
sections to make it more specific to the intentions of
the legislation.
Page 1 lines 8-11 and adds a new language on page 1
line 13 clarifying that the sale of homemade foods is
only for personal consumption.
Page 2 subsection c, language following "commercial
food establishment" was removed.
Page 2 subsection d lines 16 and 17 was removed Page 2
subsections f & g lines 3-14 were removed
Page 2 subsections h & I were reworded creating 2
clear things a seller must do before selling
unpackaged homemade food
Page 4 lines 24- page 5 line 9 changes the wording on
the relationship to other laws
Section 17.20.338
Changes were made to the various definitions and
number 6 was removed
1:56:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested clarification on the version
addressed by the explanation of changes.
MR. MCKEE stated that these changes were made to Version A to
create Version U. In response to a follow-up question, he
clarified that the sectional analysis was for Version A.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that many foods would be
eliminated, as listed on page 2 of the proposed legislation. He
questioned the food that would be included.
1:57:51 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), answered questions on CSHB
251(L&C). She responded that the bill would include all other
food, such as eggs, breads, cheeses, cakes, and jams.
CHAIR MCKAY questioned whether DEC supports the proposed
legislation.
MS. KOENEMAN responded that the sponsor has worked closely with
DEC on the current version of the bill; therefore, the
department does support this.
1:59:10 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that CSHB 251(L&C) was held over.
HB 329-AQUATIC FARM AND HATCHERY LEASES
1:59:14 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 329, "An Act relating to state tideland leases;
relating to geoduck seed transfers; and relating to aquatic
farming or related hatchery operation site leases." [Before the
committee was CSHB 329(FSH).]
1:59:41 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:59 p.m. to 2:03 p.m.
2:03:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented CSHB 329(FSH). She paraphrased from the
sponsor statement [copy included in the committee packet], which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 329 promises to provide a significant boost
to Alaska's aquatic farming industry, known as
mariculture. This legislation has the potential to
bolster the state's economy, help preserve its
environment, and enrich its coastal communities by
streamlining the tideland lease process and extending
lease durations to up to 25 years.
Mariculture, the cultivation of marine shellfish and
aquatic plants, stands as a beacon of sustainable
economic growth for Alaska. Mariculture not only
generates employment opportunities across various
sectors but also injects vitality into coastal
communities. The industry fosters commerce, both
domestically and internationally, while nurturing a
vibrant ecosystem in Alaska's pristine waters.
One of the key features of HB 329 is the
simplification of the lease acquisition process.
Currently, prospective mariculturists endure a lengthy
multi-agency application and review process which
generally takes years to complete. This bureaucratic
hurdle often deters potential farmers from entering
the industry. HB 329 aims to lessen this burden by
enabling quicker access to tidelands, enabling farmers
to concentrate more on farming and less on paperwork.
Moreover, the extension of the lease duration to 25
years provides for long-term stability for
mariculturists and encourages sustained investment in
the industry. This stability is crucial for the
development of robust mariculture operations, which
contribute significantly to Alaska's economic
diversification.
The environmental benefits of mariculture are also
noteworthy. Shellfish and seaweed play a vital role in
maintaining water quality by filtering out pollutants
and excess nutrients. They provide essential habitat
for diverse marine life and help mitigate ocean
acidificationa pressing concern.
Furthermore, mariculture aligns with Alaska's rich
cultural heritage, complementing existing traditions
and customs in coastal communities. By promoting the
sustainable utilization of marine resources,
mariculture strengthens the bond between Alaskans and
their natural surroundings.
With HB 329 paving the way for a more supportive
regulatory framework, Alaska's mariculture industry is
poised to flourish, creating jobs, stimulating
commerce, and safeguarding the state's precious marine
ecosystems. As stakeholders rally behind this
initiative, Alaska's coastal communities stand to reap
the benefits of a thriving and sustainable mariculture
sector for generations to come.
2:06:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that the Alaska Mariculture
Alliance is an organization of growers, and the organization has
requested that the proposed legislation provide a first
preference for growers to obtain leases. She explained that
currently leases are made for 10 years, but it takes several
years for farmers to see a harvest; therefore, this would allow
farmers first preference after their leases are up, giving them
the assurance that sites would not be lost. It would also allow
new leases to be up to 20 years, as this would allow for
longevity of the farms. She added that having longer leases
would help these farmers to obtain loans.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referenced the amendments that were adopted
in the House Special Committee on Fisheries, including a
provision to allow for the transfer of geoduck seeds between
hatcheries and aquatic farms. She added that the amendment also
includes the Aleutian Islands in the proposed legislation, as it
had been left out of the original law. She added that geoducks
thrive in this area. She noted that another amendment that was
adopted would eliminate the need for property appraisals, as
this would simplify the process for the commissioner. She
discussed how this would also consolidate language in the
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to Section 4 of the
proposed legislation, which deals with leases for carbon
management purposes. She stated that aquatic farm growers have
the concern that outside companies looking to invest in carbon
sequestration would lease tidelands for an extended period,
leaving the growers without the opportunity to access these
areas. She suggested that an amendment could be made to limit
the amount of tidelands these outside investors could lease.
She expressed the understanding that there is interest in
growing kelp for carbon sequestration, so there could be a dual
purpose, as part of this could be for food. She posed the
question to the committee on how this area of statute could be
shaped going forward, so Alaskan mariculture farmers would be
allowed to have a priority to tidelands to grow food and sustain
the coastal communities. She also asked what areas of tidelands
could be used solely for carbon sequestration. She noted that a
prospective amendment has been used as a placeholder for this
committee to discuss, as the committee deals with leases on a
more regular basis.
2:12:22 PM
PAUL FUHS, President, Alaska Shellfish Growers Association,
expressed support for the proposed legislation, on behalf of the
association. He stated that the bill would clean up unforeseen
issues in statute, as mariculture is a relatively new industry.
He discussed the long maturation rate for geoducks, as a 10-year
lease would be too short for this process. He noted that the
current lease process creates an unstable industry.
2:13:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS requested an explanation of a geoduck
operation.
MR. FUHS explained that geoduck farming is minimally invasive.
He stated that the maximum lease is for 10 acres in the subtidal
zone, so the farms are unseen. He stated that all other fishing
activities could take place on and around the farm. He noted
that carbon sequestration farms are much larger and can take
over the area around the sites. He expressed the understanding
that these operations would exclude local populations from using
these sites. He suggested that only allowing these operations
in remote areas could be a fix to this potential problem.
2:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to Sections 3 and 4 of the
proposed legislation on carbon management and carbon
sequestration. He questioned the distinction between these
terms.
MR. FUHS expressed uncertainty. He expressed the understanding
that these terms have the same definition.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER deferred the question to the bill
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that this is drafting language.
Considering the other carbon legislation, she expressed the
intent in this bill to make sure the leases for growers would be
secured. She stated that the drafter of the legislation
determined the language.
2:16:53 PM
JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Vance, prime sponsor of
HB 329, responded that "carbon sequestration" would be the
politically correct term, while "carbon management" is the
legalese.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER remarked on the consistency in the use of
the terms in the proposed bill.
2:17:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BAKER asked what number of current leaseholders
and businesses this would impact. He commented that regarding
other industries, a 20-year lease would be out of the norm.
MR. FUHS responded that, in general, tideland leases are longer
for other businesses, as they can be up to 55 years. He stated
that the short leases do not fit the biology of geoducks. He
stated that lease extension options would also ensure the farms
are operating properly.
2:19:26 PM
KATE DUFAULT, Program Manager, Aquatic Farms Leasing Program,
Division of Mining, Land, and Water, Department of Natural
Resources, responded that the program has currently administered
around 78 aquatic farm-site leases, with 50 percent located in
Southeast Alaska and 30 percent located in Southcentral Alaska.
She added that the remainder are in Kodiak Island and the Alaska
Peninsula. In response to a follow-up question, she stated that
the leases range in size from under 1 acre to 180 acres. She
stated that on average these leases are for 15 to 25 acres.
2:21:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether a shellfish mariculture
lease or carbon sequestration lease would generate more state
revenue and associated economic activity.
MS. DUFAULT stated that there are some rough numbers from the
2022 annual sales, but currently she does not have them. She
added that the sales from shellfish accounted for the bulk of
annual sales. She estimated that shellfish account for around
$1.6 million, while kelp accounted for $270,000 in sales. She
stated that the numbers for 2023 are not yet compiled.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned the fiscal note.
MS. DUFAULT said the fiscal note expresses the numbers in the
thousands, not the millions. In response to a follow-up
question, she stated that the staff time on the fiscal note
would represent the total cost, not the cost per hour.
2:24:04 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 329 was held over.
2:24:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:24 p.m.